A U.S. military veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan was arrested and had his rifle taken away following an incident Sunday night with a man who he says was trying to break into his home in Medford, Oregon.

The vet told the suspect that he was armed, fired a warning shot from his AR-15 and although he perhaps helped bring the wanted felon into police custody, he now faces criminal charges as well for his actions.

Corey Thompson, 36, told a local news station that he fired a warning shot into the ground when he found 40-year-old Jonathon Kinsella trying to break into his home through the back door.

According to a neighbor who lives in the same apartment complex with Thompson, this isn’t the first time that the complex has dealt with break-ins and vandalism.

At about the same time, police were responding to a 911 call from the apartment complex. According to the news report it was a disturbance call, but according to the police report it was a hang-up call.

Mugshot of Jonathon Kinsella, the man suspected of breaking into the home.

While in the area, police heard the gunshot, then saw Kinsella running away. The police caught him after a short chase, and he was then arrested on four outstanding warrants, which included burglary, assault, harassment and contempt of court. Kinsella is being held without bail.

Police also arrested Thompson and charged him with unlawful use of a weapon, menacing and reckless endangering. He was cited and released.

Medford Police Lt. Mike Budreau said, “There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting. In fact, the suspect was walking away.”

Police said that their investigation revealed that Kinsella was attempting to hide in Thompson’s backyard from the officers in the area because he had warrants out for his arrest, but he fell down while trying to climb a fence and caused a crash. They added that investigators found no evidence of criminal activity on the scene.

The calamity roused Thompson, who went to investigate with his AR-15 rifle. Thompson pointed the rifle at Kinsella and told him he was armed, according to the report. Kinsella began walking away and Thompson fired one round in Kinsella’s direction. Kinsella ran and was encountered by officers shortly thereafter. No one was struck by the bullet.

Police confiscated Thompson’s rifle and once he appears in court, provided the charges are dropped, it will be returned to him.

According to current Oregon state laws, the use of deadly force is justified only when there is a threat of imminent physical danger.

Charges should be dropped an apology should be issued His gun returned. Then a law suit filed. Police chief should be fired. This is an appalling miscarriage of justice. Overstepping there bounds. It keeps getting worse. The criminal has more rights then anyone.They (Medford PD) should be ashamed. Its mind boggling. When can someone protect themselves? So if he wasn't home and got robbed blind, The police say Ohh well sorry. I'm sure he was "walking away" from a crime scene.

Would have to side with the officers on this one. You NEVER fire a warning shot. There is no way the home owner knew the guy was a felon and from the information provided, there was no weapon on the individual, and when the round was fired, the individual was actually no threat to him or his family as he was leaving. Not to mention he was an idiot for firing that weapon in an housing area. I don't think he will walk from this one. Even if the charges are dropped, he would not likely win any suit.

actually, Jim, you have no idea what happened, because the only side of the story cited here is the police report. most of which was probably based on the testimony of the criminal. btw, as a veteran of BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Thompson can be considered an expert on the use of firearms in stressful/violent situations.

Liam, neither of your comments are really correct.
And Brian, actually if you look at my post, I clearly stated, "from the information provided." From the article, the information provided was from the suspect, the homeowner and the police, not just the suspect. From the information provided there was no weapon and the individual was attempting to leave; so IF a perceived threat existed, it was then nullified by his leaving. The homeowner was reckless in his actions and should never have fired a warning shot. And here is the biggest rub in your post. You are making an assumption that just because the homeowner was in Iraq and Afghanistan he could be considered an expert on the use of firearms in a stressful/violent situation. A judge would have to make that determination. You cannot make that assumption and a lawyer would shoot that argument full of holes. The guy could have been a cook, worked in finance, administrative assistant and on and on. Actually there is a possibility that he may have only fired a weapon during basic training for familiarization only. We don't know.... Besides, I would offer that in this case, the homeowner demonstrated he was NOT an expert on the use of firearms in a stressful/violent situation as he broke the rule of NEVER firing a warning shot. Now, for shits and grins, I am retired military and have over 38 years or so in Law Enforcement and Security, hold a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice Administration and was in the courtroom for numerous cases. What is it you bring to the table?

Jim Larsen If the cops were doing therir job cory wouldn't have had to do that he is not dumb and that felon would have been held on the ground bt me with a weapon until the cops got there he fought for the freedom you enjoy so I agree with my brother that guy demolished his place and he could have been armed the guy was lucky my brother didn't get his foot

In my state you step foot on my property unwelcome I can kill you right there. We don't play all that threaten your life crap. Your on my property at 9 10 at night and I don't know you your a dead man.

I am ALL about defending my property and my life....That being said I would have shot the man........But castle law does not allow one to kill someone for stepping on your property......You might should read up on it...It might save your life.......

If you are in Texas you may want to re-read the castle law. You can shoot someone on your property if you are in fear for your life or they are breaking certian laws. Texas Penal Code 9.41 & 9.42. If you are not from Texas I would still re-read the law as I do not know of any state that allows you to shoot someone just for being on your property.

castle law in florida states that if you don't live in my house,you have no reason to be there,you stick your head in my door or window,i can blow it off,,,if i come home and you are trying to break in,if no one is in the house,no one is in danger i can not shoot you,also in florida if you point a gun at someone when you are not in danger,it is an automatic 3 year sentence no questions asked

Even with Castle Law, I wouldn't kill a man unless I really felt imminent danger, but you can expect surgery will not help your shoulder. That's my first shot. If you keep coming at me, then it's double tap time.

Texas Law is very sensitive to cases like this. You're better off killing the person, or not firing your weapon at all. They can SUE YOU for shooting them, EVEN IF they were robbing you. The Concealed handgun safety courses also teach that it is wrong to fire your weapon unless you are in fear of your life, or someone else's life that you are protecting. Drawing your weapon on someone isn't a good idea either, it can lead to brandishing charges, etc. HOWEVER, if you're footin around on my property, at weird hours of the night, I will cock my shotgun first, and THAT will be the warning. It's all very touchy from that point on. But here in Texas, we don't dial 911!!! :)

You are up to no good if your on my property and I don't know you. All I going to say is he reached for something and I shot him thought he had a weapon. In TExas you will be hard pressed to find a judge let alone a jury in my county that would convict.

A well-trained soldier, while guarding his post in a non-combat situation, is required to issue a warning shot if the challenged individual does not stop as per General Orders...the young man did as he was trained, and no one got hurt....should be case closed.

Like it or not, those charges are legit. You can't fire off a shot because a guy wanders into your yard. What if he was just looking for his dog? He had no idea this guy had a felony record and outstanding warrants. In Arizona (which I consider pretty liberal with their gun laws) only law enforcement can use deadly force when there is an IMMINENT threat of physical danger. Civilians can only use deadly force at the IMMEDIATE threat of physical danger. There is a huge difference. Re-read the article. The police reported that he fell while climbing a fence and that they found no evidence of any criminal activity. No where in the article did it say he was armed. There is absolutely no justification for Thompson to fire off a round warning or otherwise. And yes, I am a gun owner, and yes I have a CCW and yes I carry a weapon most of the time. I just feel as a responsible gun owner I have a responsibility to know and understand the laws. Veteran or not, this guy screwed up.

If someone is bold enough to break into my home while I am there, I consider myself in imminent Physical danger. Anyone who is stupid enough to try that is stupid enough to hurt me or my family........

The problem was doing as Biden said and firing a warning shot. Even though there is a lot of stupid in the article, you only pull the trigger when you want to put the bullet in a bad guy. Anything else is silly. Unfortunately, under Oregon law, this guy is going to have to do a lot of explaining to describe why he was in IMMINENT danger. People can be stupid and criminal and not be a threat to your life under Oregon law.

As I read this story the "Criminal" was not on the shooter's property. It was an apartment building in which the shooter rented an apartment. Change the story and the rules change, but this one is a case where a wise judge will need to determine what happened - hopefully before dropping the charges against the shooter with a firm warning.

That guy was demolishing things and threatened my brothers safety and he warned the guy he was armed and he could have had a weapon how was he supposed to knopw that that guy is a major felon and my brother is getting the third degree for doing the cops job for them, I would have held the guy on the ground with my weapon on hm til the cops got there myself you don't mess with a war vet who protects this country.

Mr. Thompson this sounds like a good reason to leave Oregon. So let me get this straight? A felon is in your yard doing who knows what and you fire a warning shot that sends him running into Authorities hands. Further more your a Veteran that insured the freedom of those pukes that cuffed you. Come to Texas you might have received a medal, or at least made the weekly drawing.

Guys guys, when are you going to learn. Wait for him to enter your house and then shoot the criminal. Geesh! Get it straight! Drop the guy once he enters. Imminent threat is established and you save taxpayers $$$ by getting garbage, that out flawed criminal justice system keeps on the street, off the street. Only shoot at what you are willing to destroy. *shakes head*

“There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting. In fact, the suspect was walking away.” Yeah, AFTER he was shot at....you said police "heard the shot", meaning they weren't there when the crime (both the shooting and break-in) occured. Can't have your cake and eat it too, Cops!

It's becoming pretty apparent that there are some states that just aren't worth living in, no matter how pretty they are. When the "authorities" become the enforcement arm of an oppressive government, it doesn't matter if it's city, county, state or country.

Oregon, bastion of liberals. What can you expect? The only thing this guy did wrong that I can see is living in that State to begin with. When liberals will come down on a six year old for having a two inch toy rifle, this sort of thing is perfectly understandable. Liberals do what liberals do.

Ha Guys, You are saying shoot him and thePolice will thank you. Yes Sure. You shoot a person in the back walking away, Has on weapon, has not broke in your house, has not threatened you in any way. That will not FLY in Texas or anywhere else. IT'S called MUDER , and you will be found GULITY .

two things it's oregon you might as well be in a ifferent country. second warning shots? nope sorry here in the wild west we don't give warning shots just for the simple reason if the other guy is dead he cant say shit.